W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > December 2008

Re: first very rough editor's draft of group note

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:05:45 +0100
Cc: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, Kevin Novak <kevinnovak@aia.org>, John Sheridan <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk>, Óscar Azañón <oscarae@princast.es>
Message-Id: <57FE9049-84F9-4FF7-9E8B-F4D6541EE808@w3.org>
To: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>

Forgot to mention this closes ACTION-37.

J.


El 10/12/2008, a las 0:30, Jose M. Alonso escribió:

>
> Hi all,
>
> This message is a bit long but important, please read and comment.
>
> The very first rough editor's draft is at:
>  http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Group_Note
>
> Do not expect anything spectacular yet. There are many comments  
> enclosed in "@@" for discussion and no text is final by any means.  
> It will be evolving there based on discussions and your input is  
> very much needed.
>
> This is mainly to discuss about the structure. I expect heavy  
> discussion about it on the Group call and by email.
>
> The main issue for me is that of categorization. We have too many  
> different points of view and classifications/modalities:
> * provide, engage, enable
> * G2G, G2C, C2G
> * Topic Areas
> * Use Cases
> * ...
>
> Oscar and I have tried to come up with a short and to the point  
> perspective. We asked ourselves what the target audience is and what  
> the goal of the document is (some in John's text on "provide,  
> engage, enable") We think it's one of the main Group's goals to make  
> W3C better speak in government terms, and that several of the topic  
> areas identified at the F2F are too technical for that audience so  
> we tried to Group them in areas more used by the audience and that  
> are easier for them to recognize. Not sure if we did it well.  
> Opinions?
>
> As an example, take "Persistent URIs". This is a technical topic. An  
> eGov topic may be "Long term archiving" or "Long term data  
> management", and "Persistent URIs" may be one of the means to  
> achieve it. We thought that some topic areas where translatable 1to1  
> such as "Identification and Authentication". I'm still missing some  
> eGov terminology there anyway...
>
> If this would be the way to go, we'd need one generic use case to  
> illustrate every eGov topic area (we have 6 in there, in no  
> particular order):
>  * Identification and Authentication
>  * Multi-channel delivery
>  * Long term data management
>  * Participation and Citizen Engagement
>  * Transparency
>  * Interoperability
>
> The plan would be to follow a bottom up approach:
> * Ongoing compilation of use cases
> * Take use cases that describe real projects
> * Group similar ones into generic ones
> * Exemplify every eGov area with a generic one
>   (we'd need 6 generic ones for now)
>
> My main issue so far is that there are too many dimensions and I'm  
> still not sure what is the best way to go. Sometimes it reminds me  
> of the multiple dimensions of interoperability in the EIF 2.0 draft  
> [1] (page 20).
> This is where we need the most input now. I hope I'm not confusing  
> people even more and hope to give a more and better detailed  
> explanation on the call.
>
> For every one of those final generic cases, we would use almost the  
> same structure as that of the ones we are compiling in the wiki, may  
> be that some fields are missing or not needed. The idea is for every  
> of those cases to describe the eGov topic area, what's happening,  
> what are potential ways to improve it and issues found. Probably the  
> use case that is closest to this is so far is:
>  http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Use_Case_5_-_Your_Website_is_your_API
>
> With all the issues found, we'd draft the "Next Steps" (or whatever  
> would be the name of that section) and show some potential ways to  
> address them. It may be that we find that a standard is missing here  
> or there and that we propose to create it. It may be that there are  
> already best practices to address some, and we just need to point to  
> them... etc... I think we haven't reached the maturity as a Group to  
> develop Best Practices yet, but cold propose to do so at a later  
> stage. It would make one nice followup to this first document.
>
> Well, that's it for now. Hope it's useful. Talk to some of you on  
> the phone in a few hours.
>
> Cheers,
> Jose.
>
> [1] http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=31597
>
> --
> Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>    W3C/CTIC
> eGovernment Lead                  http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 09:06:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 December 2008 09:06:27 GMT